4.7 Article

Flax-cotton fiber blends: Miniature spinning, gin processing, and dust potential

期刊

INDUSTRIAL CROPS AND PRODUCTS
卷 25, 期 1, 页码 8-16

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2006.05.001

关键词

cotton; blends; dust; strength; flax; ginning

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Development of a flax (Linum usitatissimum L.) industry in North America is desired to supply a domestic source of clean, consistent quality textile fiber for blending with cotton. The objective of this work was to evaluate portions of traditional cotton gin equipment (extractor feeder and lint cleaner) and the 50-g cotton-spinning test (CST) for flax. Dust was collected on an area sampler in an isolated card room to evaluate dust potential during textile pilot plant processing. Fibers retted by diverse means were cleaned on two separate portions of Continental Eagle's pilot plant cotton gin stand, the Super 96 Feeder and the 24D lint cleaner. Fibers separated and removed from flax stalks by these gin sections were compared against the standard 'unified line' processing technique of the USDA Flax Pilot Plant. Test yams were then made in a CST with cotton and flax blends to provide an indirect measurement of fiber properties that can be related to the retting and gin cleaning processes. The yarns were tested for strength and evenness. Flax fibers that displayed the most favorable properties in the CST were then spun in 23 kg lots in the pilot plant at the following cotton/flax blend ratios: 100/0, 75/25, 50/50, 25/75, and 20/80. With modifications, it appears that portions of a cotton gin stand are able to process adequately small samples of properly retted flax stalks. The CST with minor adjustments provides useful data for ranking and further large-scale flax processing. As expected, it appears that flax fiber can be successfully cleaned on a cotton processing line and that increasing the amount of flax generates additional dust. (C) 2006 Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据